"Is it true that all your recollections of the event of 2001 is highly dependant on that official report?"

"Yes, it is true."

"So, do you agree that since it was not written in this very brief looking report that you did brief the suspects and the witnesses on the procedures and purposes of the Identification Parade, it is highly unlikely that the said briefing took place?"

"I disagree."

"But surely if you had done it, you would have written it, agree?"

"I disagree. I may not have reported it, but I definitely did it according to procedure."

"But how can you precisely remember an event that happened in 2001? You just said that all of your recollections of the said event is highly dependant on the official report that is in your hands right now."

"...I stand by my stance."

"So is it also true that since it was not reported here how the suspects were brought into the Identification Parade room, there is a possibility that the witnesses would already have seen the suspects prior to identification?"

"I disagree."

"The same could also be said of the clothing and tidiness of the suspects. Were they given proper attire and slippers and opportunity to shave (since they are Indians) since they are all in lock-up?"

"Yes, they were."

"But you can't be 100% sure, since it was not written in the report, and that you have identified earlier that your recollections are based on the report?"

"I...disagree."


This kind of incident in a court hearing would result in the credibility of the evidence to be highly compromised. The police officer's laziness casts a doubt over the integrity and quality of the Identification Parade, and hence one of the main evidence supporting the prosecution's case can safely be said to now be nugatory.

While this issue is small in this current case, defence lawyers have been known to win their cases on such technical terms. In essence, they win not because their clients are not-guilty (I am not implying otherwise), but because the wrong charges were filed, because the police officers had not performed their duties accordingly, because the investigating officers had not filed in a proper report to back their claims, because some evidence had not been stored properly and had been compromised, because the corporal had not jotted down the service tags of the confiscated chips hence have no way of linking them to the robbers and the list just goes on and on and on.

It is repulsive. In just a week and a half in the courts in Klang, Shah Alam, Kuala Selangor and even Kuala Lumpur, you have no idea how many of this technical loopholes defence lawyers have taken advantage of.

While of course I do not want my mentor to lose his case, but I highlighted to him that to win a case on technical grounds is just plain disturbing. We could be letting real murderers walk free just because a proper documentation was not filed!!

He looked at me with a grin and shrugged. "That's how the ball is played right now."

I thought aloud then, "Well, at least after that grilling you gave that sergeant just now, he will be more proactive and attentive in his future duties. I guess even if the prosecution lost this case based on that ground of technicality and the shortcomings of the judiciary were to release a real robber into the streets, at least in future this officer will not let a murderer go due to his lackadaisical efforts."

"You'd be surprised. This is the second time I am questioning this same officer on the very same matter. The first time was before 2001, before this case that is."

Speechless, don't you think? The current minimum qualification to enter into the police force is completing Secondary 3. To say that the police officers we are churning out now are plain stupid might be a little harsh, but it is beyond doubt that the collective quality is way below par.

We need smarter police officers. We need disciplined police officers. There was a time when the force was filled with respected individuals. They may not have been the brightest people, but they are honourable, they have integrity. Even some of the then 'licensed gangsters' were terrifyingly effective. Right now, the force can safely be said to be made up of high-school drop-outs in the complete sense. They are not academically sound enough to pursue upper secondary, they are not well-liked enough to get a job as an office-boy. Societal unwanteds who have nothing better to do. No wonder the PDRM are scorned and laughed at these days. No wonder the helm sways in the slightest breeze. I fear that this is now the common assumption of the force, and one that I cannot seem to disagree with.

Just when I thought the force cannot get any worse, I keep realising my own fears! First, you hardly see them catching any bad guys. Now I find out that when they actually do catch them, these bad guys can easily escape justice because some kapchai police mandek forgot how to spell.

Farcical. A total farce.